andysofun 2025-06-07 11:04 p.m.Finally, the accused denies that he committed "distribution of materials intended to subvert this ongoing legal process," or that the accused aimed to "adversely impact the Court through public statements which would have the effect of intimidating the Court into no longer fearlessly applying the law." The accused was attempting to expose what he believed to be misconduct by a member of the judiciary through asking the senate to investigate. The accused didn't even reference the specific case (BrendaPopplewell v. Mersea Police Department, et al.) in his statement. Additionally, the accused requests a trial or at minimum evidentiary hearing under the 14th Amendment right to due process and Mayflower constitution's equivalent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to due process in indirect criminal contempt proceedings exists, "Without deciding what may be the rule in civil contempt, it is certain that, in proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is presumed to be innocent, he must be proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and cannot be compelled to testify against himself." Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911), see also Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42 (1924). "Still further procedural protections are afforded for contempts occurring out of court, where the considerations justifying expedited procedures do not pertain…criminal contempt sanctions are entitled to full due process." Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994). Additionally, the Mayflower Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to this proceeding, and criminal procedure in this State requires a trial occur before any judgment is rendered. Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 1(1)(1). It would be a violation of due process and the presumption of innocence to not hold a trial in this matter, especially when there's strong factual disputes.